It is currently Mon Mar 18, 2024 7:19 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Strategic differences due to group tax
Post #21 Posted: Sat Jul 25, 2020 2:28 am 
Judan

Posts: 6082
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 786
Language boundaries (I do not read Asian languages and many Asians, except in particular Chen and jaeup, ignore most English texts) persist. When texts or their core contents are (preferably accurately) translated, I will comment. Identification of flaws and suggestions of symbiosis belong to the important things and I have done both but also much more incl. many rule texts, commentaries and definitions of terms used in rules. E.g., I spent 13.5 years of research on defining ko in general.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Strategic differences due to group tax
Post #22 Posted: Sat Jul 25, 2020 2:34 am 
Judan

Posts: 6725
Location: Cambridge, UK
Liked others: 436
Was liked: 3719
Rank: UK 4 dan
KGS: Uberdude 4d
OGS: Uberdude 7d
https://youtu.be/Dn4SCyBmAOo?t=59

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Strategic differences due to group tax
Post #23 Posted: Sat Jul 25, 2020 4:40 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 10905
Liked others: 3651
Was liked: 3374
jann wrote:
I meant: stone scoring -> territory scoring with tax -> drop tax.


Yes, that's a common, and reasonable, assumption. :)

But consider the Capture Game with no passing. Assuming that the players have come down to the stage where they have to start filling in territory. (Assume no seki in that particulary game, for clarity.) Two points of territory is enough for a group to be alive. The first one to have to fill in the territory of a group, leaving it with one eye and in atari, will lose. Before that happens you can determine the winner by counting territory with a group tax. Thus, the no pass Capture Game can be scored by territory scoring with a group tax. That is true for any variety of no pass go where groups have territory that they can fill in, leaving them in atari.

The pass is a modern invention. Stopping play by agreement is how I learned the game. You don't need passes to end the game and then score it. And you don't need to make a leap from stone scoring to territory scoring to get territory scoring with a group tax. :)

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Strategic differences due to group tax
Post #24 Posted: Sat Jul 25, 2020 4:47 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 10905
Liked others: 3651
Was liked: 3374
John Fairbairn wrote:
Quote:
I am the world's premier researcher in modern go rules theory.


If that's true, you can no doubt share insightful views on, say:

1. 世界の囲碁ルール (Go rules of the world) by O Meien, 2019,especially Chapter 7 on his suggestions for 純碁 or pure go。

2. 围棋规则演变史 (History of the evolution of go rules) by Chen Zuyuan, 2007, especially on the modern developments in the "Path to unification" (Chapter 6).

3. 囲碁ルールの研究 (Go rules research) by Sekiguchi Harutoshi, 2007. Comments on the perfectibility of rules (page 150) will do.

Finding logical flaws in rule sets is just pulling legs off spiders. Some researchers are concerned with symbiosis.


Do any of these authors mention Button Go? It is a way of unifying area and territory scoring that has already been used in international competition (although not by that name). :)

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Strategic differences due to group tax
Post #25 Posted: Sat Jul 25, 2020 5:58 am 
Oza

Posts: 3644
Liked others: 20
Was liked: 4620
Quote:
Do any of these authors mention Button Go? It is a way of unifying area and territory scoring that has already been used in international competition (although not by that name).


I'm sorry but I'm not interested enough in rules to go and look again. I have seen it and/or other western ideas (??Maas, ??Lasker-Maas) mentioned in some places (magazines), though I can't remember your name (or Robert's) being mentioned. Chen knows about these things, of course, but I never bothered to ask him what he thought of them. I wouldn't have understood the significance of his answer anyway.


This post by John Fairbairn was liked by: Bill Spight
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Strategic differences due to group tax
Post #26 Posted: Sat Jul 25, 2020 6:46 am 
Judan

Posts: 6082
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 786
I forgot who first invented Button Go. Maybe Ikeda? Bill is the leading expert on buttons. Bernd Gramlich has contributed. During the International Go Rules Forum, Terry Benson and I were the driving force towards also considering a compromise ruleset so I suggested Ikeda Rules. During the forum, the Asian delegates did not agree. However, my presentation motivated the Chinese organisers of the 1st World Mind Sports Games to use similar button go rules, the WMSG Rules, for which I then wrote commentaries. Personally, I like the International Go Rules more, for which I was also the main motivator, because they avoid button complications.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Strategic differences due to group tax
Post #27 Posted: Sat Jul 25, 2020 7:08 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 10905
Liked others: 3651
Was liked: 3374
RobertJasiek wrote:
I forgot who first invented Button Go. Maybe Ikeda?


Barry Phease was the first, AFAIK. Ikeda didn't quite do so.

Quote:
During the International Go Rules Forum, Terry Benson and I were the driving force towards also considering a compromise ruleset so I suggested Ikeda Rules. During the forum, the Asian delegates did not agree. However, my presentation motivated the Chinese organisers of the 1st World Mind Sports Games to use similar button go rules, the WMSG Rules, for which I then wrote commentaries. Personally, I like the International Go Rules more, for which I was also the main motivator, because they avoid button complications.


They are a form of button go without the name.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Strategic differences due to group tax
Post #28 Posted: Sat Jul 25, 2020 3:53 pm 
Lives in gote

Posts: 445
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 37
Bill Spight wrote:
Thus, the no pass Capture Game can be scored by territory scoring with a group tax. ... And you don't need to make a leap from stone scoring to territory scoring to get territory scoring with a group tax. :)

Such equivalences are not rare, but this does not necessarily mean it played any role in history. Has capture / no-pass (= obligatory move, not simple lack of passes) rules ever appeared in practice before recently?

I think the stone->territory leap had other, more important motivations, the (later) drop of tax may have been just a minor bonus.

Quote:
The pass is a modern invention. Stopping play by agreement is how I learned the game.

How about the "virtual moves" of some ancient contexts?

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Strategic differences due to group tax
Post #29 Posted: Sat Jul 25, 2020 7:41 pm 
Honinbo

Posts: 10905
Liked others: 3651
Was liked: 3374
jann wrote:
Bill Spight wrote:
Thus, the no pass Capture Game can be scored by territory scoring with a group tax. ... And you don't need to make a leap from stone scoring to territory scoring to get territory scoring with a group tax. :)

Such equivalences are not rare, but this does not necessarily mean it played any role in history. Has capture / no-pass (= obligatory move, not simple lack of passes) rules ever appeared in practice before recently?


One of the curious (to us) aspects of the famous 10,000 year ko dispute between Segoe and Takahashi was that it was unclear to the Japanese professionals whether making a play was a right or an obligation. Games ended by agreement, and Takahashi did not agree to end the game. After all the dame had been filled, he did not continue to play, either. Japanese East-West politics was involved, as well, and his team captain was there saying there was a problem. The politics helps to explain the illogical ruling that White (Segoe) won but Black (Takahashi) did not lose. But the Japanese did not know whether a move was obligatory or not.

Quote:
I think the stone->territory leap had other, more important motivations, the (later) drop of tax may have been just a minor bonus.


Where is the evidence of any stone-territory leap? The oldest scored game records we have have territory scoring, and the scores are in line with a group tax. Records of games played with stone scoring are more recent. (Not that there is direct evidence of a territory-stone scoring leap, either, but we do know that territory scoring died out in China but was preserved in Japan.)

What we do have is an ancient, incomplete description of weiqi that is older than the game records, which appears to describe stone scoring. However, the text is so incomplete and ambiguous that if we had never heard of stone scoring, we would not know that's what was being described. The player with more stones is the winner, it says, but maybe it was referring to prisoners. Quien sabe?

Quote:
Quote:
The pass is a modern invention. Stopping play by agreement is how I learned the game.

How about the "virtual moves" of some ancient contexts?


What virtual moves? I know of no text that talks of virtual moves.

Edit: As to such equivalences not being rare, it came as a shock to me. :shock: ;)

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Strategic differences due to group tax
Post #30 Posted: Sat Jul 25, 2020 9:18 pm 
Lives in gote

Posts: 445
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 37
Bill Spight wrote:
jann wrote:
Has capture / no-pass (= obligatory move, not simple lack of passes) rules ever appeared in practice before recently?

... the illogical ruling that White (Segoe) won but Black (Takahashi) did not lose. But the Japanese did not know whether a move was obligatory or not.

These are what I meant by simple lack of passes, in these cases nobody claimed that to keep moving until no more legal moves exist (inside territory) would be obligatory.

Quote:
What virtual moves? I know of no text that talks of virtual moves.

The sensei's page for stone scoring etc mention them, but it's unclear how much credibility is behind. I MAY have come across this one other source as well, but don't remember where.

But a last ko with no dame and no threats is something that likely came up somewhere in history, so one could at least expect a hint from some old sources?

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Strategic differences due to group tax
Post #31 Posted: Sat Jul 25, 2020 10:15 pm 
Honinbo

Posts: 10905
Liked others: 3651
Was liked: 3374
Bill Spight wrote:
jann wrote:
Has capture / no-pass (= obligatory move, not simple lack of passes) rules ever appeared in practice before recently?

... the illogical ruling that White (Segoe) won but Black (Takahashi) did not lose. But the Japanese did not know whether a move was obligatory or not.


jann wrote:
These are what I meant by simple lack of passes, in these cases nobody claimed that to keep moving until no more legal moves exist (inside territory) would be obligatory.


My understanding is that the question was debated at that time. It was not just that Takahashi refused to capture the ko stone and fill the ko, as the referee, Iwasa Kei, directed him to do. The Igo Club web page I linked to on the SL page has disappeared, and I have no access to the writings at that time. :-|

Quote:
Quote:
What virtual moves? I know of no text that talks of virtual moves.

The sensei's page for stone scoring etc mention them, but it's unclear how much credibility is behind. I MAY have come across this one other source as well, but don't remember where.

But a last ko with no dame and no threats is something that likely came up somewhere in history, so one could at least expect a hint from some old sources?


OC, 10,000 year kos are not that uncommon. The practice if the ko was not fought to the end was as Iwasa said, for the player who could safely take and fill the ko to do so at the end of play. There were no written rules.

If an unfilled ko remained after all the dame were filled, there was no agreement about what to do. As I understand it, both Shusai and Go Seigen favored leaving the ko unfilled and counting the empty point as territory. Kubomatsu, who was Takahashi's team captain, disagreed, and thought that the ko should be filled. The disagreement between Kubomatsu and Shusai may have played a role in the politics of the Segoe-Takahashi dispute. It may have kept the Nihon Kiin from approving a written set of rules until after Shusai died. In those rules making a play was considered a right, not an obligation. Except, OC, the obligation to fill a ko at the end of play. ;)

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Strategic differences due to group tax
Post #32 Posted: Sat Jul 25, 2020 11:02 pm 
Lives in gote

Posts: 445
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 37
Bill Spight wrote:
jann wrote:
in these cases nobody claimed that to keep moving until no more legal moves exist (inside territory) would be obligatory.

My understanding is that the question was debated at that time. It was not just that Takahashi refused to capture the ko stone and fill the ko, as the referee, Iwasa Kei, directed him to do.

Well, an actual pro game where they keep filling up territory, even the last eyes, allowing the opponent to capture does feel like a strange idea to me.

Quote:
OC, 10,000 year kos are not that uncommon. The practice if the ko was not fought to the end was as Iwasa said, for the player who could safely take and fill the ko to do so at the end of play.

So, what does the other player do (no dame) between opponent taking and filling the ko?

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Strategic differences due to group tax
Post #33 Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2020 2:23 am 
Oza

Posts: 3644
Liked others: 20
Was liked: 4620
Quote:
My understanding is that the question was debated at that time. It was not just that Takahashi refused to capture the ko stone and fill the ko, as the referee, Iwasa Kei, directed him to do.


According to Iwasa's own account in Kido 1929-01 (i.e. very shortly after the game) there is no indication that he made a ruling. He did say he had expected Takahashi to connect and that he was surprised when they went on playing dame. But as the game was not agreed to be finished he evidently did not make a ruling. He may have done so eventually (and we can probably safely infer what he might have then said) but he was left betwattled by Kubomatsu who came over and claimed it was a void game.

Both players maintained their different viewpoints, which were published in the Oteai Bulletin immediately after the game. There was no talk of passes or obligation to play or other modern constructs. Segoe based his claim on custom. Takahashi relied more on a gut feeling that it was illogical.

Baron Okura made an administrative ruling, not a go ruling. He was fed up with petty squabbles among players. And it wasn't just East-West politics, incidentally. Segoe and Shusai didn't get on, and Takahashi was the younger brother of Shusai's wife.

But Segoe didn't let it go. In the 1930-01 issue of Kido he presented a long article which he said was based on logical thought rather than trying to warm up cold ashes. I translated this in 2016 and have a note in my file that is headed: "Translation (copyright 2016) by John Fairbairn. Public use allowed only on the L19 go forum." That suggest to me that I may have posted it here already, if someone wants to try and find it.

If it's not here, I'm not going to post it now because there will be too much work creating diagrams, but the following introduction will indicate what Segoe's claimed intentions were.

Quote:
After last autumn’s problem arose, I tried giving some thought to various situations, and it was rather interesting. It may even be possible to create some sort of “constitution” [a pun on his name]for this but I just tried visualising actual scenarios. I am not venturing an attempt at special pleading on my own behalf. This is a disinterested opinion.
In go it is not possible to infer anything about the whole game on the basis of just one part of the board. The outcome of a problem in a corner of the board may be determined by the size of ko threats, and if neither side has any ko threats, a ten-thousand-year ko simply has to be regarded as seki.


He backed this up be demonstrating positions with double ko sekis, so he was at that stage not arguing about this particular game directly, but rather was trying to turn it into something theoretical. As with all logic, the destination depends where you start from, and his starting point included the assumption that a triple ko was a void game. He made no mention, thohgh, of passes or obligations.

As a practising pro, he was also mindful of real life:

Quote:
In other words, if White gives up the lower right corner, he loses by 3 points, but if he allows the seki in the lower left to break it is jigo. Because this is a problem of counting, which you can solve by calm reflection, although it is very easy to go astray as it involves giving up something large to rescue something small.


Hw as also a man of often strong opinions. They included this one:

Quote:
Filling in dame one by one is the height of stupidity.


That's one reason he's one of my favourites!


This post by John Fairbairn was liked by: Bill Spight
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Strategic differences due to group tax
Post #34 Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2020 3:09 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 10905
Liked others: 3651
Was liked: 3374
jann wrote:
Bill Spight wrote:
jann wrote:
in these cases nobody claimed that to keep moving until no more legal moves exist (inside territory) would be obligatory.

My understanding is that the question was debated at that time. It was not just that Takahashi refused to capture the ko stone and fill the ko, as the referee, Iwasa Kei, directed him to do.

Well, an actual pro game where they keep filling up territory, even the last eyes, allowing the opponent to capture does feel like a strange idea to me.


Well, apparently, as John Fairbairn indicates below, Iwasa did not tell Takahashi to do that after the dame had been filled, or at any time. The statement on the SL page that he did so, and then Kubomatsu said there was a problem came from the linked Igo Club page which no longer exists. But certainly nobody suggested at that time or later that the players fill in territory. The players, according to the Igo Club page, did fill in the dame, while Takahashi avoided taking and filling the ko.

Quote:
Quote:
OC, 10,000 year kos are not that uncommon. The practice if the ko was not fought to the end was as Iwasa said, for the player who could safely take and fill the ko to do so at the end of play.

So, what does the other player do (no dame) between opponent taking and filling the ko?


That's not what I meant. The Japanese practice was to leave the dame unfilled. The opponent could have filled a dame between the taking and filling of the ko, or it could have happened informally, just as making protective plays was. IMX, as the dame were being filled without alternating play, if your opponent needed to make a protective play, you pointed that out.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.


Last edited by Bill Spight on Sun Jul 26, 2020 3:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Strategic differences due to group tax
Post #35 Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2020 3:50 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 10905
Liked others: 3651
Was liked: 3374
John Fairbairn wrote:
Quote:
My understanding is that the question was debated at that time. It was not just that Takahashi refused to capture the ko stone and fill the ko, as the referee, Iwasa Kei, directed him to do.


According to Iwasa's own account in Kido 1929-01 (i.e. very shortly after the game) there is no indication that he made a ruling.


The statement that he told Takahashi to do so came from the Igo Club page, which no longer exists. {shrug} Doing so does not necessarily mean that he made a ruling. As a bridge TD, where irregularities happen all the time, I know that you may make a friendly suggestion without making a formal ruling. If Takahashi had taken and filled the ko, Iwasa would not have had to make a ruling. ;)

Quote:
He did say he had expected Takahashi to connect and that he was surprised when they went on playing dame. But as the game was not agreed to be finished he evidently did not make a ruling. He may have done so eventually (and we can probably safely infer what he might have then said) but he was left betwattled by Kubomatsu who came over and claimed it was a void game.

Both players maintained their different viewpoints, which were published in the Oteai Bulletin immediately after the game. There was no talk of passes or obligation to play or other modern constructs. Segoe based his claim on custom. Takahashi relied more on a gut feeling that it was illogical.


That the question of whether a play was a right or obligation came from the now nonexistent Igo Club page. But even if it did exist, it would be only a secondary source, unlike the Oteai Bulletin or Kido. As I recall, Yasunaga's proposed rules (Constitution) of 1932 (4 years after the Segoe-Takahashi incident) referred to relinquishing the right to make a play, which we now call passing.

Quote:
But Segoe didn't let it go. In the 1930-01 issue of Kido he presented a long article which he said was based on logical thought rather than trying to warm up cold ashes. I translated this in 2016 and have a note in my file that is headed: "Translation (copyright 2016) by John Fairbairn. Public use allowed only on the L19 go forum." That suggest to me that I may have posted it here already, if someone wants to try and find it.


I only found something from 2013, here https://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7613 . which also talks about a game in 1943 where a pass did occur.

Quote:
{Segoe} was also a man of often strong opinions. They included this one:

Quote:
Filling in dame one by one is the height of stupidity.


That's one reason he's one of my favourites!


He was hardly alone in holding that opinion. It was virtually universal among Japanese players at that time. Even the Japanese 1989 rules, which appear to force the filling of dame during play, because of the new definition of seki, apparently did allow the dame to be filled informally, and the practice continued. But since then the failure to make a protective play during the dame filling stage has caused a flap. ;)

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Strategic differences due to group tax
Post #36 Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2020 5:04 am 
Oza

Posts: 3644
Liked others: 20
Was liked: 4620
Quote:
I only found something from 2013, here https://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7613 . which also talks about a game in 1943 where a pass did occur.


That's not it.

The 1943 game is GoGoD 1943-05-26c. See also my book "The Incident Room" (which also has Iwasa's own actual comments). This too related to uncertainty over a 10,000-year ko.

Quote:
As I recall, Yasunaga's proposed rules (Constitution) of 1932 (4 years after the Segoe-Takahashi incident) referred to relinquishing the right to make a play, which we now call passing.


Yes, though his first draft was as early as 1929, in connection with the above game. The constitution is given in New In Go 54, where you can also find Shimada Takuji's Primitive Rules of 1934. This marked the time when mathematicians first got seriously involved with rules. A fell day!


This post by John Fairbairn was liked by: Bill Spight
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Strategic differences due to group tax
Post #37 Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2020 6:21 am 
Judan

Posts: 6082
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 786
We do not know whether there were Chinese rules mathematicians centuries ago. IIRC, Olmsted (USA) started with it during the early 1920s, i.e., before the Japanese, who learned from him and Robinson.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Strategic differences due to group tax
Post #38 Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2020 6:58 am 
Oza

Posts: 3644
Liked others: 20
Was liked: 4620
Quote:
IIRC, Olmsted (USA) started with it during the early 1920s, i.e., before the Japanese, who learned from him and Robinson.


I see I transposed two digits: Shimada's book was 1943 not 1934. Sorry. And in that case he may have been inspired by Olmsted and Robinson, whose book Rationalisation of Go was (I think) published in 1941. But would a Japanese in 1943 get to see that? However, according to Hayashi Yutaka, Olmsted started by making contact with Yasunaga and with Nogami Sho, and I believe they pointed him at the workd of Fukuzawa Sanpachi who did write about go and who produced several mathematical treatises in, at least the very early 20th century.

Quote:
We do not know whether there were Chinese rules mathematicians centuries ago.


Precisely. So that's irrelevant. But we do know that the go board stimulated Chinese mathematicians. Like many people still today, they were intrigued by the possible number of positions.

Yi Xing (672~717) is the first known to us. He was a Buddhist monk who specialisied in mathematics and astronomy. He made great contributions to the then important science of calendars. His go work is lost but Shen Kuo (1030~1093) mentions it in the Mengxi Bitan (Dream Pool Essays), which was published in 1086. Under the title "A problem of the mathematician Yi Xing", he quotes and discusses an early attempt at calculating permutations.

Given that Shen had an advanced interest in engineering, medicine, astronomy and cartography (and as a Chancellor of the Hanlin Academy had access to all the best sources), and that his Dream Pool Essays was an encyclopaedic collection of notes on most of the then known sciences, I think it is reasonably safe to assume he would have mentioned any other major work on go mathematics.

Around the time of World War I, Italian scholar G. Vacca pointed out an apparent error in the permutation method, and Needham has also discussed this. But as far as I know these westerners were probably not aware that the number of legal positions postulated by Yi Xing might depend on the Chinese rules then in force. There's a project for you!


This post by John Fairbairn was liked by: Bill Spight
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Strategic differences due to group tax
Post #39 Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2020 8:08 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 10905
Liked others: 3651
Was liked: 3374
BTW, let me emphasize that playing a no pass game does not necessarily mean that play continues to the bitter end. No pass games typically reach a point where the next play is costly. At that point play can stop and the game can be scored. For go that point is when the last neutral point has been played. Players are not required to fill in territory. They can count it. :)



Here is an sgf file for filling the final dame of the Segoe-Takahashi game. At that point, under no pass go with prisoner return, the 10,000 year ko has a local score of 3 pts. for Black, 1 pt. for taking the ko, 1 pt. for filling the ko, and 1 pt. for returning the captured White stone. These plays would not actually have to be made to score the game.

And a simple unfilled ko when the dame have been filled would count as 1 pt. of territory, in line with the opinions of Shusai and Go Seigen for regular go.

With no ko threats, Three Points without Capturing would be scored as such, and simple Bent Four in the Corner would be dead. :)

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.


This post by Bill Spight was liked by: Harleqin
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Strategic differences due to group tax
Post #40 Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2021 6:10 am 
Beginner

Posts: 4
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 0
John Fairbairn wrote:
Quote:
Do any of these authors mention Button Go? It is a way of unifying area and territory scoring that has already been used in international competition (although not by that name).


I'm sorry but I'm not interested enough in rules to go and look again. I have seen it and/or other western ideas (??Maas, ??Lasker-Maas) mentioned in some places (magazines), though I can't remember your name (or Robert's) being mentioned. Chen knows about these things, of course, but I never bothered to ask him what he thought of them. I wouldn't have understood the significance of his answer anyway.


I remember Robert's name being mentioned several times in one of Chen's online articles I have once read at some point.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group